Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/India-locator-map-blank.svg

Blank map of India

This is an unusal nomination. I'm not nominating it for looks but rather functionality. The colours are standardised as per Wikipedia:WikiProject Maps, so I can't change that. My reasons for nominating are for:

Highest resolution image available, (drawn to scale) on the internet: (1486x1734 px) + SVG
Most comprehensive NPOV map available on the internet. Shows the following disputed areas by way of shading and borders:
- Kashmir: Pakistan-administered (Indian-claimed), Indian-administered (Pakistan claimed), Chinese-administered (Indian-claimed), area ceded to China by Pakistan (Indian claimed).
- Arunachal Pradesh: Claimed by China, administered by India
- Additional Western sector claims/administration by China in the states of Himachal Pradesh and Uttranchal. No India map on the internet has such a level of detail covered.

Note: I've compiled the map from 4 sources. I believe that the map will go a long way as a base for the long standing demand for NPOV India maps. Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:47, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nominate and support. - =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:37, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Would you mind putting a list of what the various colored areas mean on the image page? It will make it easier for future reference. Cheers! --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 06:51, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Done! =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:28, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I completely agree with the nominator. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 08:48, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support It's very well done. Agree entirely on principle raised by nom -- Samir (the scope) धर्म 08:51, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the four colours are very similar, and it's particularly hard to see the difference between the first pair (India, disputed area 1) and to a lesser extent, the second pair (disputed areas 1 and 2). Consider changing them? Stevage 09:24, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Umm.... I've used transparencies rather than a different colour to depict the two disputed regions. I wanted the colours to blend from yellow to orange to show the differences. Since the gradient from yellow to orange is not much, it does not contrast too much. To mitigate this problem somewhat I'd used different border styles. Awaiting further suggestions. Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 09:55, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've tried to modify the colours. Please take a look. =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:07, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Much better! Does the legend still need updating? Stevage 15:36, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support with new colours - great map, perfectly appropriate for featured image. Stevage 15:36, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Minor issue being that similar colour need to be fixed for clarity in first glance. Map featurable as highly functional and trend-setter in NPOV maps. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 09:31, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Reluctant neutral~~ - I'd love to support this as I agree strongly about the importance of NPOV mapping on Wikipedia. At the moment, though, the colours of the disputed regions are far too similar - on this LCD panel (at uni) you can't distinguish between them at all. Also, you mention that the map is compiled from 4 sources - what is the copyright status of these sources and what effect does that have on the resulting status of a compilation map? I'll definitely support if these issues are addressed. --Yummifruitbat 11:28, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Colours: I'm not sure what to do about the colours. (See my reply to Steveage). I'm trying to think of something that is not to flashy and has a wider gradient. Do you have any suggestions?

Image copyrights: Three of the four sources are PD, the fourth is copyrighted. According to international copyright laws, geographical and political boundaries cannot be copyrighted for obvious reasons. What is copyrighted are the style and creativity. See Wikipedia:Image use policy#User-created images and Wikipedia:Fair use#Policy (#1 Maps and diagrams can often be redrawn from original sources...) Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 11:49, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't tried this, so just a suggestion, but could you simply make the orange colour a bit darker, and the yellow perhaps slightly lighter, so as to widen the gradient? At the moment the orange particularly seems fairly pale, although I agree about not making it too 'flashy' :) --Yummifruitbat 16:06, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried to modify the colours. Please take a look. =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:07, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support edited version - much clearer. Thanks for clearing up my concerns about copyright, too :) --Yummifruitbat 11:02, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No probs :) =Nichalp «Talk»= 11:12, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support - although I do have a small comment :) I personally think the un-disputed international border would look better if it was a dark black line without dashes. Also there is gap in the border between Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 12:28, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be fixing the gap and acceding to your suggestion. =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:10, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Gap fixed and international border made standard. =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:07, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. -- User:Deepujoseph/sig 15:24, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Support - I have a minor issue. In its highest resolution, I could see a black mark (shape of 'U') in the space between Sri Lanka and Tamil Nadu. Can that be fixed? - Ganeshk (talk) 15:42, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Removed. =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:07, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Definitely an example of Wikipedia's best work. bcasterline t 15:52, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. High res, NPOV (!). Nice pic.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| ŗ 3 $ |-| ţ |-|) 16:24, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. howch e ng {chat} 16:46, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Entirely endorse points made by Nichalp. ImpuMozhi 20:45, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support not exactly striking... --Lewk_of_S e rthic _contrib ^talk 03:12, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately yes, I agree with you. :( I would like to try enhance it while keeping it within the ambit of recommendations made by the Maps wikiproject. Please feel free to make any suggestions. Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 11:12, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~. Sorry, but I don't see how this is FP material. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 15:42, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
From Wikipedia:What is a featured picture? it conforms to points #1-#6. I can't do anything about #7 since I've modelled it on recommendations made by Wikipedia:WikiProject Maps. #8 does not really apply here. Hope this helps. Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:55, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, let me be clear. I don't think it fulfills #5. I don't see how the blank map is useful for the article. Now, a filled-in one might be, but that's not what's being voted on at the moment. I'd have to see a filled-in one to decide if I'd support that one. At an absolute minimum, the legend needs to be on the map, not on the description page. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 17:28, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for elaborating. :) We plan to use the map as a locator map for towns and cities in India. We'll be modelling the location based on the work done on Template talk:Infobox protected area. This map will be the base map for all Indian cities, and the location will be superimposed over it. The map will thus be used across a thousand articles. Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:49, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Eh, fair enough. :) --Dante Alighieri | Talk 18:40, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose, I'm sure you spent alot of time working on it and I commend you for that. But It's just a blank map. I like looking at a featured picture thats vivid or exciting. -- BWF89 03:14, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]